1 minute ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Well... I just found out there's a limit of likes I can give per day.... what if I like more than 50 things in a day? Lame....

I will accept your likes tomorrow too......

1 minute ago, Ginkapo said:

I will accept your likes tomorrow too......

I tried Ginkapo... I tried....

7 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Then explain what 'you may instead' means, if it doesn't mean replacing the regular activation ability.

This is an excellent question.

One interpretation that is syntactically correct is that a squadron must already be on the table (the squadron you "would activate") within range before you are allowed to instead place a squadron that was set aside.

Another is that the " instead " is a modifier of the behavior of the entire squadron command (placing instead of activating).

Yet another would be you are doing a placement-activation instead of just a simple activation.

I would love to see FFG clarify this so we can all get back to the business of pushing plastic.

7 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Then explain what 'you may instead' means, if it doesn't mean replacing the regular activation ability.

Edit: apparently he responded while I was typing this. let me go read.

2 minutes ago, Democratus said:

This is an excellent question.

One interpretation that is syntactically correct is that a squadron must already be on the table (the squadron you "would activate") within range before you are allowed to instead place a squadron that was set aside.

Another is that the " instead " is a modifier of the behavior of the entire squadron command (placing instead of activating).

Yet another would be you are doing a placement-activation instead of just a simple activation.

I would love to see FFG clarify this so we can all get back to the business of pushing plastic.

except the clarified FAQ is stating that you are NOT activating with the fist part, since you have that pesky second sentence that states:

So the way I read the RLB FAQ:

"when a ship with this card equipped resolves a ( figher) command, it's can place it's set-aside squadrons up to the number it would activate during that ( fighter command). "

so if I resolve a figher command of 4 and have 4 squadrons set aside and i do as this sentence says, I can now place up to 4 of my set aside squardons. At no time does it state or imply I am using up the 4 squadron activations I have avalaible with my resolved fighter command.

"After the squadrons are placed, they can be activated ( one at a time) as part of that fighter command, but cannot move"

so with my 4 activations I can chose to activate 1 or more of the 4 fighters I have activated or I could activate other fighters that are already in play as there is no prohibition on what figher said I can activate........

I know the wording on the card is different, but an FAQ clarification trumps the wording on the card, even if it seams to go against what the card originally stated.

4 minutes ago, Jondavies72 said:

So the way I read the RLB FAQ:

"when a ship with this card equipped resolves a ( figher) command, it's can place it's set-aside squadrons up to the number it would activate during that ( fighter command). "

so if I resolve a figher command of 4 and have 4 squadrons set aside and i do as this sentence says, I can now place up to 4 of my set aside squardons. At no time does it state or imply I am using up the 4 squadron activations I have avalaible with my resolved fighter command.

"After the squadrons are placed, they can be activated ( one at a time) as part of that fighter command, but cannot move"

so with my 4 activations I can chose to activate 1 or more of the 4 fighters I have activated or I could activate other fighters that are already in play as there is no prohibition on what figher said I can activate........

I know the wording on the card is different, but an FAQ clarification trumps the wording on the card, even if it seams to go against what the card originally stated.

FAQ doesn't trump original wording, its an extension of the wording to "clarify the card". You can still set a blue dice to a single hit on warlord, for instance. If they were contradicting the original wording, it would involve an errata.

You can place squadrons up to the number you would activate instead of activating a squadron. You can only place "its" set aside squadrons, and you have to place all of these together at the beginning of the squadron command.

3 minutes ago, thecolourred said:

After the squadrons are placed, they can be activated (one at a time) as part of that O command, but cannot move.

Is not exactly with this command. I will try yo explain myself.

With the squadron command you can activate squadrons.

On the other hand RLB add a new effect that replace the default effect but it does for each squadron. The FAQ clarifies that now with the squadron command "modified" the activation of the set aside squadron is a part of the squadron command resolution so you do both (place and avtivate). It doesn't say that you can activate those squadrons with the command as you normally do.

In other words: as a part of the command resolution you may activate those squadrons. What means you can do whatever with the command and activate those squadrons as an effect of that command resolution.

What is not exactly the same than "you may activate those squadrons with this command."

I hope I explained myself

3 hours ago, WuFame said:

If you're meaning this as sarcasm or a joke, it's going over my head. Sorry.

Worlds is in two weeks. I think most of the people expected flotilla changes expected them after World's. It feels unlikely that FFG would shake up the meta so heavily before then.

I think it's only a few people expecting there to be an Errata on Flotillas. If you go over the threads it's mostly a few passionate players that fully believe there needs to be change, a few that fully believe there doesn't need to be any change and most are ambivalent or silent on the matter.

So unless there is some serious issues with Flotillas at World's we won't see any changes because there hasn't been any data coming out of regionals or nationals showing any issues with Flotillas or Squadrons. It's mostly people's opinions and anecdotal stories perpetuating the belief that Flotillas and Squadrons are not inline with the rest of the products. And that's not enough, data don't care about "feelings".

Again, without data coming out of Tournaments there will be no changes. So please don't be disappointed when we don't see any more FAQ's for another year.

1 hour ago, thecolourred said:

The RLB CARD says you place squads instead of activating them. the FAQ clarifies that they are not activated when you place them (since you have to activate after you place any squads). The FAQ wording of "When a ship with this card equipped resolves a O command, it can place its set-aside squadrons up to the number it would activate during that O command. " doesn't overwrite the wording of:

"O: For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1."

Exactly so it is a point by point basis not a blanket normal command or special rlb command

6 minutes ago, Beatty said:

I think it's only a few people expecting there to be an Errata on Flotillas. If you go over the threads it's mostly a few passionate players that fully believe there needs to be change, a few that fully believe there doesn't need to be any change and most are ambivalent or silent on the matter.

So unless there is some serious issues with Flotillas at World's we won't see any changes because there hasn't been any data coming out of regionals or nationals showing any issues with Flotillas or Squadrons. It's mostly people's opinions and anecdotal stories perpetuating the belief that Flotillas and Squadrons are not inline with the rest of the products. And that's not enough, data don't care about "feelings".

Again, without data coming out of Tournaments there will be no changes. So please don't be disappointed when we don't see any more FAQ's for another year.

not sure about feelings, it's more about fleet diversity. Like in X-Wings, if they realize there's one and only one build that is predominant, they might want to change things up so we see more archetypes.

Personally, I was hoping for a bump in points so 450 points fleets were legal now.

3 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

not sure about feelings, it's more about fleet diversity. Like in X-Wings, if they realize there's one and only one build that is predominant, they might want to change things up so we see more archetypes.

Personally, I was hoping for a bump in points so 450 points fleets were legal now.

Never gonna happen

1 minute ago, Sybreed said:

not sure about feelings, it's more about fleet diversity. Like in X-Wings, if they realize there's one and only one build that is predominant, they might want to change things up so we see more archetypes.

Personally, I was hoping for a bump in points so 450 points fleets were legal now.

Well, *I'm* for reducing fleet sizes to 350, so game play times are more manageable in a way that encourages stores to have Armada events more often.

As to flotillas - your statement is spot-on. Whether there is a game-mechanic issue with them or not...when 90% of lists have their faction's flotilla in it, that speaks to a problem. I'm sure we'll see the same thing at Worlds - on the top tables, everyone is going to have at least one flotilla. That's an indication of a design balance problem.

1 minute ago, Tirion said:

Never gonna happen

you just made every interdictors in the world very, very sad.

3 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

you just made every interdictors in the world very, very sad.

Not Mine.

Mine are Tournament Winning.

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

Not Mine.

Mine are Tournament Winning.

pffff

I don't believe you

(what's your list)

2 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

pffff

I don't believe you

(what's your list)

Do a search for "Nose Punch"

A Completely and utterly janky concept.

The actual tournament description and feedback is in the Big Article Predictions Thread - again, you'll find reference to it there.

And to be Fair - it was a small tournament.... Nothing important like a regionals or anyhtring...

But I did Table two lists with it...

Just now, Sybreed said:

not sure about feelings, it's more about fleet diversity. Like in X-Wings, if they realize there's one and only one build that is predominant, they might want to change things up so we see more archetypes.

I think you would be hard-pressed to define "has a flotilla in it" as an archetype.

4 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

I think you would be hard-pressed to define "has a flotilla in it" as an archetype.

what's the expression... "you're putting words in my mouth that I never said"

Something like that.

I don't think it's an issue as well. Though, I have to admit, if I have a fleet without a flotilla, I almost feel naked. I was referring to the "2 ships, 3 flotillas, 134 squadron points" meta that we've been seeing.

Lately, I was watching recent videos from a guy on youtube who does very condensed batreps of about 5 minutes. Each one of the 6 fleets I saw followed a similar archetype. That's one guy who posts videos, sure, but I think they play at a high level.

I'm referring to that.

Just now, Sybreed said:

I don't think it's an issue as well. Though, I have to admit, if I have a fleet without a flotilla, I almost feel naked. I was referring to the "2 ships, 3 flotillas, 134 squadron points" meta that we've been seeing.

Lately, I was watching recent videos from a guy on youtube who does very condensed batreps of about 5 minutes. Each one of the 6 fleets I saw followed a similar archetype. That's one guy, sure, but I think they play at a pretty high level.

Okay, but that's also going to be representative of the meta where they are playing, not on a Global Scale, which is always the argument when it comes to Meta...

Because its **** rare in Calgary.

Mostly because people only own 2 Flotillas. Owning a 3rd is very rare (I know of only 1 player who does )

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Okay, but that's also going to be representative of the meta where they are playing, not on a Global Scale, which is always the argument when it comes to Meta...

Because its **** rare in Calgary.

Mostly because people only own 2 Flotillas. Owning a 3rd is very rare (I know of only 1 player who does )

same here. Hell, no squads is still the meta here xD

I'm talking about high level play, and the upcoming tournament will settle the debate once and for all IMO.

RLBs.... Flotillas....

3 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

same here. Hell, no squads is still the meta here xD

I'm talking about high level play, and the upcoming tournament will settle the debate once and for all IMO.

It won't. (Scientifically speaking), The sample size is too small.

Because again, its only fractionally representative of the whole. It is supposed to showcase the "Best", and I am sure that some of the best are included , but it doesn't sum up the whole as the best, because anyone is capable of paying the money to go, and some of the best are not in that group. And indeed, some of the worst are, as well, because hey, they could.

So, what we can take away from all this is that FFG needs to include more examples so we at least know designer intent.

9 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

It won't. (Scientifically speaking), The sample size is too small.

Because again, its only fractionally representative of the whole. It is supposed to showcase the "Best", and I am sure that some of the best are included , but it doesn't sum up the whole as the best, because anyone is capable of paying the money to go, and some of the best are not in that group. And indeed, some of the worst are, as well, because hey, they could.

welp, my bad for not knowing how attending the tournament works, thought only the best were invited. Still, if we see the archetype mentionned above winning everything, that's still indicative of something. Kind of.